M10 vs M10-R - Real dynamic Range/Highlight Recovery difference

[SOHODE]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

14 minutes ago, SrMi said:

Judging by LrC's histogram, the difference in brightness is about 1/3 stop.

It’s interesting because users experience and also videos on YouTube is showing one stop practical difference in highlights recovery. 
It’s a bummer that this issue could be resolved with a new firmware by Leica but they didn’t do it in order to sell it in their new camera as a new feature. A thing that all other competitors had it from at least 5-6 years ago. 

Edited April 23, 2022 by SOHODE

[GFONG]

On 4/23/2022 at 2:34 AM, SOHODE said:

That's exactly what I'm looking for. Is there any picture samples/comparison on the net or you have done guys?

You can download some samples images from the link below:

https://www.rangefinder.com.hk/simple-comparason-m10-m10r-m10m/

[SOHODE]

4 hours ago, GFONG said:

You can download some samples images from the link below:

https://www.rangefinder.com.hk/simple-comparason-m10-m10r-m10m/

I'm looking at those pictures. I'm confused because actually it's showing M10 highlights recovery at over 3 stops is better than M10-R. M10's over 4 stops loosing all details though and the M10-R over 4 stop picture is missing. I think maybe the files are misnamed? This is totally different from what is said about their highlight recovery. 

[GFONG]

10 hours ago, SOHODE said:

I'm looking at those pictures. I'm confused because actually it's showing M10 highlights recovery at over 3 stops is better than M10-R. M10's over 4 stops loosing all details though and the M10-R over 4 stop picture is missing. I think maybe the files are misnamed? This is totally different from what is said about their highlight recovery. 

Below is the YouTube video of the test. Unfortunately, it is in Cantonese. 
 

The video compared the highlights recovery and the noise of M10P and M10R. If I recalled correctly. For highlights recovery within 3 stops, M10P is better.  For me, I only pay attention to the noise. 

 

 

Edited April 24, 2022 by GFONG

[SOHODE]

16 minutes ago, GFONG said:

The video compared the highlights recovery and the noise of M10P and M10R. If I recalled correctly. For highlights recovery within 3 stops, M10P is better.  For me, I only pay attention to the noise. 

Unfortunately it doesn’t have subtitles. It’s very interesting that it shows M10P has a better highlight recovery within 3 stops overexposure. I see the cards details are blown out in M10-R but not in M10-P. It is different from what other people reviewed. I see M10-P also has better noise management in lower ISOs (in the same resolution) but not sure how to judge full size pictures. What do you think about the noise in both cameras?

[GFONG]

15 minutes ago, SOHODE said:

Unfortunately it doesn’t have subtitles. It’s very interesting that it shows M10P has a better highlight recovery within 3 stops overexposure. I see the cards details are blown out in M10-R but not in M10-P. It is different from what other people reviewed. I see M10-P also has better noise management in lower ISOs (in the same resolution) but not sure how to judge full size pictures. What do you think about the noise in both cameras?

For the noise, I found that the M10P is one to one and a half stop better than the M10R. For example M10P’s images at ISO 8000 is cleaner than M10R at ISO 6400. Also by looking at M10R’s images at ISO 400 and above, you can see the noise.  I don’t know why people in Internet keep saying the M10R high ISO is better than M10.

You can go to the YouTube video 43:52 to see the comparison of ISO 1600 under 2 stops and 56:56 to see the ISO 6400 images.

[SOHODE]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

11 minutes ago, GFONG said:

.  I don’t know why people in Internet keep saying the M10R high ISO is better than M10.

Maybe they compare the same size pictures (not the same resolution) and since the pixels in M10-R (in the same size as m10) are smaller it feels less noisy? I’m just guessing since I haven’t compared them myself. 

[GFONG]

14 minutes ago, SOHODE said:

Maybe they compare the same size pictures (not the same resolution) and since the pixels in M10-R (in the same size as m10) are smaller it feels less noisy? I’m just guessing since I haven’t compared them myself. 

For me, it doesn’t really matter whether it is  compared by using same size or same resolution. The most important is when looking at the images on my iMac, I find that the high ISO images of M10R is more noise compared to M10P. That’s why I can considering to replace my M10R BP with the M10P.

[SrMi]

38 minutes ago, GFONG said:

For me, it doesn’t really matter whether it is  compared by using same size or same resolution. The most important is when looking at the images on my iMac, I find that the high ISO images of M10R is more noise compared to M10P. That’s why I can considering to replace my M10R BP with the M10P.

It is undoubtedly a valid criterion. 
IMO, the final output matters more than what I see in the post. For example, if you look at images on your iMac, you resize them to the same dimension (the size/resolution of the screen). In that case, I do not expect that you will see any difference between M10-P and M10-R.

[SOHODE]

55 minutes ago, SrMi said:

It is undoubtedly a valid criterion. 
IMO, the final output matters more than what I see in the post. For example, if you look at images on your iMac, you resize them to the same dimension (the size/resolution of the screen). In that case, I do not expect that you will see any difference between M10-P and M10-R.

SrMi What do you think about the highlight recovery in this test?

[SOHODE]

2 hours ago, GFONG said:

For me, it doesn’t really matter whether it is  compared by using same size or same resolution. The most important is when looking at the images on my iMac, I find that the high ISO images of M10R is more noise compared to M10P. That’s why I can considering to replace my M10R BP with the M10P.

It's hard to tell from this test because we are just seeing the JPEG files. Also the test is not between the final outputs (full pictures with the same framing). It's comparing a full size M10 picture with a cropped M10-R picture. (my opinion)

[SrMi]

1 hour ago, SOHODE said:

SrMi What do you think about the highlight recovery in this test?

I cannot comment since I do not know how the test was done. However, it would be helpful if @GFONG would write up a detailed description of the test. 

There are different things that people understand under highlight recovery. I use Adobe's definition: reconstruct missing data once at least one channel is blown. BTW, as I increase the exposure from the point of the first blown channel, the reconstruction of colors starts to suffer. The detail is still there, but the color changes. That is often seen in skies but may not be seen in monochromatic scenes.

I doubt that it is possible to recover highlights past 1.5 stops of a blown channel without losing detail or color. With M10-R, I expect one stop, with M10-P, half a stop. Sometimes it is less.

[GFONG]

5 hours ago, SrMi said:

 

I cannot comment since I do not know how the test was done. However, it would be helpful if @GFONG would write up a detailed description of the test. 

Bobby had done the review of M10R and a lot of users requested him to do the comparison of M10R and M10P. For this test, he was able to get the M10R, M10 and M10M from his supplier. Since the M10 sensor is similar to M10P, he believed the result should be able to represent the M10P.

Since the sensors size of two cameras are different, he thought the scale up (24MP to 40MP) or scale down (40MP to 24MP) of the images would affect the originality of the images as most software will add the extra settings to enhance the images. He thought of a simple method which is easy to conduct the test and people are easy to understand the result by viewing the images at 100%.  The method was using the slider. When testing the M10R, he moved the camera further. When testing the M10, he moved the camera closer to the subject.  Then he put two images together and made sure it was 100% overlaid. 
 

For the light settings, he used 2900 Kelvin as he thought it is more stable. He only adjusted the shutter speed if the lighting changed. The lens he used is the Leica 50mm APO and the aperture was set to f11. 
 

He also used the following tools to test the sensors resolution  (video 14:00 to 16:30):

- Leather bag - Texture / 3D / Color 

- Magnifier glass - the leather cover of the magnifier - he put the light behind the cover, so could show the light and the texture of the edge. For the silver rim of the magnifier, it showed the graduated change of the lighting. It could test the sensors resolution.

- Paper sample book - the edge is dotted. It was used to test the sensors resolution. The white plastic screw was used to test the resolution as some sensor could not show the texture and the details of the screw.

- Color chart - He used the color chart to see the color reproduction and the noise when overexposed and underexposed.

Hope this help. 

[SrMi]

59 minutes ago, GFONG said:

Bobby had done the review of M10R and a lot of users requested him to do the comparison of M10R and M10P. For this test, he was able to get the M10R, M10 and M10M from his supplier. Since the M10 sensor is similar to M10P, he believed the result should be able to represent the M10P.

Since the sensors size of two cameras are different, he thought the scale up (24MP to 40MP) or scale down (40MP to 24MP) of the images would affect the originality of the images as most software will add the extra settings to enhance the images. He thought of a simple method which is easy to conduct the test and people are easy to understand the result by viewing the images at 100%.  The method was using the slider. When testing the M10R, he moved the camera further. When testing the M10, he moved the camera closer to the subject.  Then he put two images together and made sure it was 100% overlaid. 
 

For the light settings, he used 2900 Kelvin as he thought it is more stable. He only adjusted the shutter speed if the lighting changed. The lens he used is the Leica 50mm APO and the aperture was set to f11. 
 

He also used the following tools to test the sensors resolution  (video 14:00 to 16:30):

- Leather bag - Texture / 3D / Color 

- Magnifier glass - the leather cover of the magnifier - he put the light behind the cover, so could show the light and the texture of the edge. For the silver rim of the magnifier, it showed the graduated change of the lighting. It could test the sensors resolution.

- Paper sample book - the edge is dotted. It was used to test the sensors resolution. The white plastic screw was used to test the resolution as some sensor could not show the texture and the details of the screw.

- Color chart - He used the color chart to see the color reproduction and the noise when overexposed and underexposed.

Hope this help. 

Appreciate the writeup!

Unfortunately, you did not mention how he determined the three stops of highlight recovery.

 

[GFONG]

1 hour ago, SrMi said:

Appreciate the writeup!

Unfortunately, you did not mention how he determined the three stops of highlight recovery.

 

He was using the external light meter to measure and set the exposure. In Lightroom, he only used the exposure slider to increase or decrease the exposure value.

IMO,  the over or under-exposure images are used To test the dynamic range of the sensors. For me I only compared the downloaded files, which stated “normal”. For example, compared the “M10 ISO 6400 normal.jpg” to “M10-R ISO 6400 normal.jpg.

Edited April 25, 2022 by GFONG